↓ Skip to main content

Quantifying the Hygroscopic Growth of Individual Submicrometer Particles with Atomic Force Microscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Analytical Chemistry, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Quantifying the Hygroscopic Growth of Individual Submicrometer Particles with Atomic Force Microscopy
Published in
Analytical Chemistry, March 2016
DOI 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b04349
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The water uptake behavior of atmospheric aerosol dictates their climate effects. In many studies, aerosol particles are deposited onto solid substrates to measure water uptake, however, the effects of the substrate are not well understood. Furthermore, in some cases, methods used to analyze and quantify water uptake of substrate deposited particles use a two-dimensional (2D) picture of particle to monitor growth by following changes in the particle diameter with relative humidity (RH). However, this 2D analysis assumes that the droplet grows equally in all directions. If particle growth is not isotropic in height and diameter, this assumption can cause inaccuracies when quantifying hygroscopic growth factors (GFs), where GF for a for a spherical particle is defined as the ratio of the particle diameter at a particular relative humidity divided by the dry particle diameter (typically about 5% RH). However, as shown here, anisotropic growth can occur in some cases. In these cases, a three-dimensional (3D) analysis of the growth is needed. This study introduces a way to quantify the hygroscopic growth of substrate deposited particles composed of model systems relevant to atmospheric aerosols using atomic force microscopy (AFM) which gives information on both the particle height and area and thus a three-dimensional view of each particle. In this study, we compare GFs of submicrometer sized particles composed of single component sodium chloride (NaCl) and malonic acid (MA), as well as binary mixtures of NaCl and MA, and NaCl and nonanoic acid (NA) determined by AFM using area (2D) equivalent diameters, similar to conventional microscopy methods, and compared to GFs determined using volume (3D) equivalent diameter. We also compare these values to GFs determined by a hygroscopic tandem differential mobility analyzer (HTDMA) (substrate free, 3D method). It was found that utilizing volume equivalent diameter for quantifying GFs with AFM agreed well with those determined by substrate-free HTDMA method, regardless of particle composition but area equivalent derived GFs varied for different chemical systems. Furthermore, the NaCl and MA mixture was substrate-deposited both wet and dry, revealing that the hydration state of the particle at the time of impaction influences how the particle grows on the substrate upon water uptake. Most importantly, for the binary mixtures different populations of particles can be distinguished with AFM, an individual particle method, whereas HTDMA sees the ensemble average. Overall, this study establishes the methodology of using AFM to accurately quantify the water uptake of individual submicrometer particles at ambient conditions and over a wide range of RH values. Furthermore, the importance of single particle AFM analysis was demonstrated.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 30%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Researcher 4 7%
Professor 3 6%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 20 37%
Environmental Science 6 11%
Engineering 5 9%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,364,458
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Analytical Chemistry
#20,037
of 26,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,555
of 300,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical Chemistry
#137
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 26,501 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.